or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Hobbit - Page 29

post #841 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by kezug View Post

I take it down one notch because it was too DAMN loud! My family had to put napkin in our ears as ear plugs...I also made a complaint to the usher (a kid all of 16 1/2)...the sound was so unbearable during the preview of Into The Darkness that caused me to contact someone. I am not sure if anything was done, but it was LOUD! and uncomfortable.
This is why I avoid IMAX theaters now.
I too have complained to ushers about the volume.
It's too bad, because the PQ is always first-rate.

As someone who went to my share of rock concerts when young, I can handle loud.
Unfortunately, my experience with IMAX presentations has made me question whether my hearing was jeopardized.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Wytchone View Post

I think PJ is trying to appease folks who complained about all the stuff left out of LoTR.
I thought he put everything into his trilogy of any consequence in the books.
I have read criticism of his leaving out Tom WTFhisname, but it was a character with no real importance and Tolkein should have edited it out anyway.
post #842 of 944
This is a very good movie. Not the level of LOTR trilogy but still better than 95% of the movies out there. There were many scenes that were just fantastic, beyond anything I've seen in movie before on a technical level. Some of the large battle scenes had unreal detail and clarity. This is the future. I'm sure many diehard movie fans thought having sound sucked decades ago and then having color sucked. This is the future, deal with it.

I think many of the critics and people on this board are crybabies. Pure and simple. Were you expecting LOTR trilogy part 2? Did you even read the Hobbit? Gollum is one of the most amazing achievements in movie history. I have never seen a CGI character with SOUL like this before.
post #843 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

This is why I avoid IMAX theaters now.
You're pathetic. I thought you avoided them because they didn't serve alcohol. The truth is finally revealed. Sad.
post #844 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

You're pathetic. I thought you avoided them because they didn't serve alcohol. The truth is finally revealed. Sad.
Did you or did you not counsel me awhile back to BMOB?
I am a quick study....
post #845 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreHD View Post

If Jackson wanted to make an episodic thing with NO payoff (NONE?!) in the first two installments? Just do a network TV series or three-part miniseries on sci-fi channel biggrin.gif!! There's a huge difference between network TV and the movie theater, and Jackson clearly doesnt get it! In one medium, okay you can cheat the audience out of a payoff because its FREE, and you can always do something next week or a couple months later at the end of the season! You CANNOT do this in a movie you're releasing in a theater! First of call its NOT free, and the next installment can be YEARS away! So you are OBLIGATED to give that paying audience a payoff to SOMETHING by the conclusion of that 90-180 minutes they put aside! Its the difference between a 500 issue marvel comics series and a ONE issue graphic novel! Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The dragon is the main villain, we all know this! It will last until the "season ender". But why on earth...heh...would you build the SECONDARY character up throughout the 3 hour movie, leading you to believe that there will be some grand showdown at the end-only to have him waltz away unscathed, goodnight and see you next year!! They battle his pets and minions, and ESCAPE. THATS IT. So the main villain in untouched, the sendary one is left untouched, and you're sitting there like a smuck wondering why did I spend the last 3 hours sitting here biggrin.gif! The Queen is killed in Snow White and the Huntsman! The trilogy goes on whether the Orc was taken down or not, and you leave THIS moving movie thinking, how awesome, can't wait for the next installment! Mind you, the dragon was left untouched but you still left the theater fulfilled!
This is BASIC, BASIC, THEATER movie storytelling, and just BASIC BUSINESS!! I don't know if he just doesn't respect the audience to insult them like that, but I cannot trust him now! The blu ray will be avoided unless I know he put in the RIGHT ending, and I won't bother with part 2 or 3!
As for the Kill Bill comment? Since I'm having such a hard time getting THIS point through your skulls, I'm going to wiki to read the plot of those movies, and I can tell you if Quin ten insulted your intelligence as badly as this guy plans on doing!


To address the Star Wars point someone said:

The whole Empire Strikes Back premise was that Luke was LEARNING to be a Jedi and he left without being ready. It showed in his fight with Vader and he got his butt kicked. So Vader prevailed, the villian won, which goes along with the entire movie story. Luke wasnt ready.

As far as Hobbit. I agree. Even FOTR had the Sauroman troll orc thing that was defeated by Aragorn in the end. He wasn't a main villian character(Sauroman and Sauron were) but he represented the villians for that episode of the movie. What I still hate to this day is how Sauroman was defeated. The guy was this all powerful warlord/wizard yet was defeated by some talking trees. You have got to be kidding me. That was more of a let down than anything in LOTR.

Second would be how the witch king was defeated.
Come to think of it all the main villians in these movies had an anti climactic ending to them.

In Hobbit we didnt get that. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
We just got Orcs, trolls and some troll king but he represented nothing and had nothing to do with the main plot. Now if the troll king was sent to hunt out the gnomes from the big blue guy with a hook then we could look at it like FOTR.
post #846 of 944
So, saw the movie and likes it. But I do have to say, i feel like after LOTR, LOTR extended and it being on TV every weekend, I'm a bit burnt out on New Zealand sweeping vistas and long establishing shots of people walking.

The movie was also too long, although coming from a point of ignorance on the book, not sure if they could have fixed that. The entire first half of establishing the characters was way too long, and I felt you could probably have done so just as well, quicker. The movie really picked up in the second half, but prior some of it felt like too many scenes stitched together, with a bumpy flow and weird character / scene transitions. "Now we do this, now we do that" sort of thing. Something I really never felt in the previous iterations, especially fellowship.

I didn't get to check out a 48fps showing, but did enjoy it on (real)IMAX. It was great both audio and visually, except during quick pans or scans where the added digital blur seemed wipe out all and any detail into a muddled mess. I've read this might only be an artifact of the IMAX print, but it's a bit weird none the less. Slow pans didn't seem to have the same overuse, and poor effect.
post #847 of 944
I drove an hour and a half to see this movie in HFR 3D. It was a poor decision on my part as this was the worst movie experience I have ever had. I could find nothing to like about this movie. Not 48fps, not 3D, and certainly not the story. I was so upset with this film that I left 45 min into it. Fortunately for me, I got redemption in the form of Django Unchained! Sweet, bloody redemption. One of the best movies I seen in theaters in some time. Christoph Waltz, I tip my hat to you!
post #848 of 944
Wow. Finally. An SVS thread where everyone is in agreement!wink.gif

While it may seem natural to compare The Hobbit to LOTR, they really have little in common in tone, POV and depth.
Sounds like Jackson decided to add some storylines that weren't included in the book but were formed later and put into the appendices.
Why not? I'll reserve judgement until I see it on Monday morning.

I see in addition to the wealth of film directors here on AVS, we also have some noted authors as well!
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

I thought he put everything into his trilogy of any consequence in the books.
I have read criticism of his leaving out Tom WTFhisname, but it was a character with no real importance and Tolkein should have edited it out anyway.

Oink, nothing personal but are you f*king kidding with the above statement?

I had criticisms of the LOTR movies as did everyone but for Godssakes that is so far gone it's ridiculous.
I'm sure there will be criticisms of The Hobbit as well but it sounds as if he didn't futz with the first part at least like leaving out entire characters or inventing scenes but we'll see. smile.gif
post #849 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milt99 View Post

Oink, nothing personal but are you f*king kidding with the above statement?
I had criticisms of the LOTR movies as did everyone but for Godssakes that is so far gone it's ridiculous.
From Wikipedia:

In The Lord of the Rings, Tom Bombadil is a mysterious character who aids Frodo and his companions on their journey. He and his wife Goldberry, the "Daughter of the River," still live in their house on the Withywindle, and some of the characters and situations from the original poem appear in The Lord of the Rings. In the book, he is described as "Master of wood, water and hill", and nearly always speaks or sings in stress-timed metre: 7-beat lines broken into groups of 4 and 3 (old English metre as first noted in Caedmons Hymn in the story of Bede. The metre was discovered in the 19th century). He appears in three chapters, "The Old Forest", "In the House of Tom Bombadil", and "Fog on the Barrow-downs". He is mentioned in the chapter "The Council of Elrond" as a possible keeper and protector of the One Ring. He is mentioned at the end of the story in "Homeward Bound" and "The Grey Havens". Behind Bombadil's simple façade are hints of great knowledge and power, though limited to his own domain.

Tom first appears when Merry and Pippin are trapped by Old Man Willow and Frodo and Sam cry for help. Tom commands Old Man Willow to release them, singing him to sleep, and shelters the hobbits in his house for two nights. Here it is seen that the One Ring has no power over Bombadil; he can see Frodo when the Ring makes him invisible to others, and can wear it himself with no effect. He even tosses the Ring in the air and makes it disappear, but then produces it from his other hand and returns it to Frodo. While this seems to demonstrate that he has unique and mysterious power over the Ring, the idea of giving him the Ring for safekeeping is rejected within Book Two's second chapter, "The Council of Elrond." Gandalf says, rather, that "the Ring has no power over him", and believes that Tom would not find the Ring to be very important and so might simply misplace it.

Frodo spends two nights in Tom Bombadil's house, each night dreaming a different dream, which appear to be either clairvoyant or prophetic. The first night he dreams of fearful things, including Gandalf's imprisonment atop Orthanc in Isengard. The second night he dreams of a song that "seemed to come like a pale light behind a grey rain-curtain, and growing stronger to turn the veil all to glass and silver, until at last it was rolled back, and a far green country opened before him under a swift sunrise."

Before sending the hobbits on their way, Tom teaches them a rhyme to summon him if they fall into danger again within his borders. This proves fortunate, as the four encounter Barrow-wights during the following chapter, "Fog on the Barrow-downs". After saving them from the Barrow-wights, Tom gives each hobbit a long dagger taken from the treasure in the barrow. As the hobbits leave the Old Forest, he refuses to pass the borders of his own land, but before he goes he directs them to The Prancing Pony Inn at Bree.

Towards the end of The Return of the King, when Gandalf leaves the hobbits, he mentions that he wants to have a long talk with Bombadil, calling him a "moss-gatherer". Gandalf says, in response to Frodo's query of how well Bombadil is getting along, that Bombadil is "as well as ever" and "quite untroubled", and is "not much interested in anything that we have done and seen," save their visits to the Ents. At the very end of The Lord of the Rings, as Frodo sails into the West and leaves Middle-earth, he has what seems to him the very experience that appeared to him in the house of Bombadil in his dream of the second night.



How is this character relevant to the the "return of the king?"
To the defeat of Sauron and the destruction of the forces of evil in Middle Earth?
IMO, not at all.
Movies have a finite running time and PJ's LOTR suffers nary a lick for leaving it out.
post #850 of 944
I saw the hobbit last night in 3d HFR and with Dolby Atmos at Showplace Icon in Chicago.
I went in having an idea of what to expect. I brought along 3 friends that really did not.

My opinion:
Tech: I will start with Dolby Atmos as it is not exactly as hotly debated as HFR.
I don't know if it was just this theater and other ones I am use to simply aren't so great or if having Dolby Atmos also implies extra detail to calibration and quality of the monitors but everything sounded superb. This has been my first theater experience since assembling my theater at home that showed me there was room for an upgrade. My only disappointment was the LFE was rather weak.. Don't know if it was the movie or the theater but we will have to wait till the bluray comes out.
The dynamic range was beyond what I am use to and impressed me at many different scenes.
Now for what was done with so many channels...
Having the overhead speakers allowed for several scenes where things would fly overhead from behind and then appear on screen. This effect was used very believably.
Several other times it was used to place yourself in the middle of of whatever was on screen.
At the beginning when you meet the dwarfs the dwarfs I found to be very effective. I had to remind myself it wasn't in the theater talking but rather the dwarfs in the other room. That was really impressive.
Another great scene involving the dwarfs is when they are sleeping. The snores literally came from 13 different directions.
If other movies are to use Dolby Atmos I certainly consider it worth the 40 min drive.

3D:
This was by far the best 3d experience I have yet had.
I don't know the technical terms to describe it but it seemed to add the perfect amount of depth to every single shot. It looked exactly like a play was taking place in front of me with giant actors. I believe this is also partly due to the HFR but more on that in a bit.
There was only a few "pop-outs" which still to me were not effective and just added a big blurry thing to the scene. However, if 3D tech does not improved from here, although I suspect it will, I would be satisfied.

HFR:
Disclaimer: I prepared by watching normal TV and movies with motion interpolation turned on for a week, which I normally have off.
When it first began it took several minutes to adjust to what I was seeing. It really still had the fake look to it. That feeling quickly went away and I really began to believe in the experience of HFR. Everything began to take on the feeling of it happening right there in front of you. I believe the 3d helped with this as well. But if you were to scale things correctly I have a feeling I would not have been able to tell if I was watching real people or a video. I am almost positive I wouldn't have been able to tell.

My only gripe would be action scenes seem like they will require a new level of choreography and planning as it just felt a little slow. Although most likely closer to what reality would be.

I really look forward to more movies using HFR.

Story: I won't go much into the story except I completely disagree with people that said it was too long or had boring parts as I personally was loving every minute of it.

Overall this has been my favorite movie experience I can remember.

My friends:
They all agreed this was the realist movie experience they had ever had. Nothing but praise for HFR and Dolby Atmos, they also all agreed that the 3D was unbelievable. My one friend who groaned at the idea of going to see it in 3D was probably the most impressed by it and is a full on convert to quality 3d.
During one of the scenes, that involves snoring, the person sitting next to me bumped me because he thought I was the one snoring. Atmos was really that impressive at localizing sounds.
They also agreed this was their favorite movie experience.
Edited by Shinyav - 12/30/12 at 3:58pm
post #851 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by madtapper View Post

I drove an hour and a half to see this movie in HFR 3D. It was a poor decision on my part as this was the worst movie experience I have ever had. I could find nothing to like about this movie. Not 48fps, not 3D, and certainly not the story. I was so upset with this film that I left 45 min into it. Fortunately for me, I got redemption in the form of Django Unchained! Sweet, bloody redemption. One of the best movies I seen in theaters in some time. Christoph Waltz, I tip my hat to you!

LOL. did you even read the Hobbit? What were you expecting LOTR trilogy part 2? Its amazing that so many people say the Hobbit sucked because it was not like the LOTR. It not suppose to be, its the Hobbit.
post #852 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

LOL. did you even read the Hobbit? What were you expecting LOTR trilogy part 2? Its amazing that so many people say the Hobbit sucked because it was not like the LOTR. It not suppose to be, its the Hobbit.

I completely agree. The movie was very good. HFR and 3D wasn't really exciting to be honest but that's just me. We're gonna see it again next week, this time in simple 2D, and I'm pretty sure I'll enjoy it at least as much. I thought it was a bit slow in the beginning but, and without revealing anything, at one point I was very much into the story and it ended up highly enjoyable until the last frame. I'm looking forward to the next part(s)...
post #853 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

I completely agree. The movie was very good. HFR and 3D wasn't really exciting to be honest but that's just me. We're gonna see it again next week, this time in simple 2D, and I'm pretty sure I'll enjoy it at least as much. I thought it was a bit slow in the beginning but, and without revealing anything, at one point I was very much into the story and it ended up highly enjoyable until the last frame. I'm looking forward to the next part(s)...

Like I said, the first 90 dragged horribly, last 90 flew by. It's only the start of the adventure mind you, and they got me interested in the rest. I just hope they can make the rest a bit tighter, and flow a little bit better. The start of the Hobbit really did feel like they were just checking off the mandatory scenes they needed from the book, instead of seamlessly building to something.
post #854 of 944
As far as I can remember from the novel, there's only few 'downtime' sections of the remaining story, and I found them to be more interesting than the initial scenes that form the party for the quest. You should like the pacing going forward quite a bit. I have no idea what's in store with the third film though.
post #855 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeblow View Post

As far as I can remember from the novel, there's only few 'downtime' sections of the remaining story, and I found them to be more interesting than the initial scenes that form the party for the quest. You should like the pacing going forward quite a bit. I have no idea what's in store with the third film though.

does anyone know if the 2nd movie ends where the hobbit book ends? And then the 3rd film is basically the bridge to FOTR?
post #856 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

does anyone know if the 2nd movie ends where the hobbit book ends? And then the 3rd film is basically the bridge to FOTR?

That is what I read as well.

They should have advertised better just what the three movies are. Many folks I have spoken with believe it to be THREE movies for the one book and are put off by this.
post #857 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

I completely agree. The movie was very good. HFR and 3D wasn't really exciting to be honest but that's just me. We're gonna see it again next week, this time in simple 2D, and I'm pretty sure I'll enjoy it at least as much. I thought it was a bit slow in the beginning but, and without revealing anything, at one point I was very much into the story and it ended up highly enjoyable until the last frame. I'm looking forward to the next part(s)...

saw it 1st time in liemax non hfr 3d. not bad use of 3d but certainly not a stellar 3d experience. it was not well used in the interior scences which too often used the cutout/popout 3d effects on 3 planes.
the one up close, the middle one you're supposed to focus on, and the background plane.

3d worked better on the lanscape shots and the underground scenes as they seemed to go beyond the standard 3 planes of reference.

still for $18.00 a ticket, the 3d did not come close to justifying the cost.

saw it again last saturday afternoon at a $5 matinee in 2k dlp 2d. very nice picture, sharp with details popping out. audio was excellent.
i actually think the movie looks better in this format. no dstracting 3d and you don't lose much in the 2d presentation from the few scenes where
the 3d pleasingly jumps out at you.

i like the movie, but this is pj's extended version in cinematic release. won't be buying any special ee's for this one.
post #858 of 944
cant imagine an extended version of the hobbit. This movie is pretty much maxed out already, which is a good thing. In fact it may be a good idea to have a short-cut version that is 90 minutes long for those with short attention spans.
post #859 of 944
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

That is what I read as well.
They should have advertised better just what the three movies are. Many folks I have spoken with believe it to be THREE movies for the one book and are put off by this.
That's just nonsense left over from the original April Fools thread (and posts on the interwebs) of 3yrs ago. The Hobbit will be three full movies devoted to the one book, the last movie won't be a bridge between The Hobbit and LOTR.

It's simply amazing how misinformation sticks around once it spreads.biggrin.gif
post #860 of 944
Saw it. Liked it greatly. Merry New Year.
post #861 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

Merry New Year.
Ever the wit...cool.gif
post #862 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveFi View Post

That's just nonsense left over from the original April Fools thread (and posts on the interwebs) of 3yrs ago. The Hobbit will be three full movies devoted to the one book, the last movie won't be a bridge between The Hobbit and LOTR.
It's simply amazing how misinformation sticks around once it spreads.biggrin.gif
But the third movie will be a bridge to LotR, at least in part. Look a the subtitle of the second movie. Even in the book there's not much more to the story to make a full third flick after that. Also, characters from LotR that do not appear anywhere in The Hobbit novel show up based on preview pics I've seen. The final film is the natural place for their appearance.
post #863 of 944
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeblow View Post

But the third movie will be a bridge to LotR, at least in part. Look a the subtitle of the second movie. Even in the book there's not much more to the story to make a full third flick after that. Also, characters from LotR that do not appear anywhere in The Hobbit novel show up based on preview pics I've seen. The final film is the natural place for their appearance.
Sure you can say that, but you can say that all 3 movies are filled with stuff that's not in the original Hobbit too. I don't think the 3rd Hobbit movie will be any more a "bridge" to LotR than the previous 2 are filled with extraneous Tolkien mythology.
post #864 of 944
Not the same thing. Even in book form, the long LotR story was broken into three parts by the publisher, and the three LotR movies follow that format more or less. The Hobbit was always one book, and a much shorter one than that (compared to LotR combined).

While it makes sense to cut the prequel book into two movies because of how action scenes take longer to play out on screen than in a book, the book alone does not have enough content to support three movies.

Besides, earlier in this thread someone quoted the film makers saying they dove into LotR references not in the Hobbit to add content to the overall story., That's likely the "bridge" stuff that people are refer to. I'm not accusing them of inventing lore just for the sake of extending the new series, but they will include content not specifically referenced in The Hobbit.

I have a feeling that... Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The second movie ends with the Smaug dragon encounter, the third movie opens up with the last section of The Hobbit novel, which is a bunch of human politics and fussing over the distribution of gold, orc/goblin wars, and Bilbo returning back to the Shire. That's not enough for a 3 hour extended film. At some point, the LotR characters that are not in the Hobbit book but we KNOW are in this new series from previews have to pop up. That will likely be the second half of the final movie, which I think focuses on content from various Tolkien notes and writings that present nothing from The Hobbit book itself.

Edited by joeblow - 1/1/13 at 5:30pm
post #865 of 944
The Hobbit book has a natural ending that is the start of sixty years of somewhat "shaky peace" before the dark powers gather its forces that starts the LOTR story.
It would be natural to stop there, but maybe just add a little "appendix" that hint of what is brewing to connect the two series.

What Jackson and some of the actors have been saying about the next two movies and what we know from casting...... Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
One elf characters have been created that is neither in The Hobbit book or in the LOTR appendix. That could mean that the story enters into more of the realms and lives of the elfs. Something that was somewhat lacking in the LOTR movies. This is probably mostly for movie two.
Added for Part 2; Tauriel is a Woodland Elf whose name means "Daughter of Mirkwood", and is the head of the Mirkwood Elven guard. She is played by actress Evangeline Lilly.

Peter Jackson; "They are going to be confronted by a very large angry dragon."

Part 3 is still lacking 10-12 weeks of filming which is as much time it often takes to film a normal feature. Even if much of Part 3 is filmed, they have still not filmed the Battle of Five Armies which will contain the POV of each of the main characters and aerial battles of the eagles.

I do hope that Jackson at some later point do a "visual re-grade" of both of the series so they can be seen as one continues story without any much visual difference between them.
Edited by coolscan - 1/2/13 at 4:29am
post #866 of 944
Coolscan, green tint to rule them all. wink.gif
post #867 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Coolscan, green tint to rule them all. wink.gif
That would at least keep some threads in the AVS forum's BD section alive for a very long time. biggrin.gif

But seriously; I believe that is a BD disc authoring fault and might even have been corrected by now. The LOTR Extended version DCP was screened in several Cinema LOTR marathons all over the world just before The Hobbit premier, and not a word about "Teal" came from that.
post #868 of 944
Went to Portland today and saw the Hobbit in HFR 3D.

Firstly, this is the best live-action 3D I have ever seen....superb depth, closest thing to a holodeck yet.
Very immersive and Jackson uses it wisely.

OK, the HFR....
The technology is amazing, never seen anything quite like it.
PJ starts the movie with a little HFR showcase (before the crew shows up at Bilbo's).
The clarity and "real time" motion is startling.
Very jarring, it's hard to really explain it....other than it reminds me of video game trailers and soap operas for some reason.
During the last part of the movie my mind was finally able acclimate to it, but I can completely see why others have said they don't like it.
Frankly, I not sure if I do.
I would like to see a 2D HFR presentation for comparison.

Is this the future of the movie biz?
I dunno....maybe, maybe not.

BTW, the audio was terrific...great pans, great fidelity.

The movie itself?
Well, basically this movie is a variation of FOTR.
It was great to see so many of the wonderful LOTR characters again.
The guy playing Bilbo doesn't have much charisma and is hard to get behind.
Overall, this is what I would call a "good" movie...just not a classic like LOTR.

FWIW, I don't regret going to see it and recommend to all filmgeeks to check out the HFR....it really is DIFFERENT.
post #869 of 944
Saw it last night. Movie was really good... Not really epic like the others, but this is a kids book. Saw it in IMAX hfr 3d. Sound was excellent and the 3d presentation was better than even Avatar. HFR took a little while to get used to. I can't wait to get the bluray so I can compare it to 24fps. For the first the half of the movie I couldn't escape the feeling I was watching a movie on the bbc. The second half my brain got used to it and I stopped looking for the what my mind perceived as motion that was a little too fast and smooth. I don't know whether it is the cameras used or the resolution they recorded at but close ups of the characters revealed a lack of resolution when looking for details in their hair. I don't know whether to describe the effect as edge enhancement or compression. It didn't ruin the film but it wasn't as sharp as other films I've seen that were recorded digitally. Maybe it was an effect of the hfr or the 3d. Anyone else notice this?
post #870 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by prpolo View Post

this is a kids book.
Regardless, this movie is way too intense for kids...IMO.

Quote:
I don't know whether it is the cameras used or the resolution they recorded at but close ups of the characters revealed a lack of resolution when looking for details in their hair. I don't know whether to describe the effect as edge enhancement or compression. It didn't ruin the film but it wasn't as sharp as other films I've seen that were recorded digitally. Maybe it was an effect of the hfr or the 3d. Anyone else notice this?
Yeah, I did.
Generally, 3D presentations don't achieve the razor sharpness that 2D can.
I surmise it's the current state of the tech.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home